Candidates in the general election will have 23 per cent more money to spend after the Tories slipped the increase through without debate. This only applies if any candidates other than Tories actually have that much money, of course.

The Observer has reported that, under the new limits, the total amount the candidates of each political party can spend has increased from £26.5m to £32.7m.

In March, the Electoral Commission recommended there should be no such increase in spending limits for candidates over the so-called “long campaign” period between December 19 and general election day on May 7.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against “excessive spending” in order to “prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”.

Ministers changed the law through a statutory instrument, the terms of which were not debated in the Commons, which is used more properly for consensual changes in the law. A Labour source said the move had not been spotted by them at the time, so they missed the chance to force a vote in the Commons.

It’s too late for that now.

We know the Conservatives have much more moolah than any of the other parties – let’s face it, they have spent all of their period in office changing the law to make it possible for the extremely rich and big businesses to donate increasingly ludicrous amounts to Tory Party funds, and this is the reason.

For example: In the past four years, 27 per cent of the £78,010,807 the Tories have raised – £21,072,508 – has come from hedge fund donors. George Osborne’s 2013 budget abolished stamp duty reserve tax on funds, a £145m giveaway to those very same hedge funds. That’s just one example.

The Observer states: “With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.”

We know that the Tories won more seats than anyone else at the 2010 election by throwing ridiculous amounts of Lord Ashcroft’s money at marginal seats and by lying about their policy intentions. This undemocratic move – there was no Parliamentary debate and one can hardly say it has been announced loudly; did you even know this decision was made in the summer? – clearly states their intention to repeat the same grubby, underhanded manoeuvre next year.

And we know that David Cameron has made this decision against the advice of the Electoral Commission – meaning that it should be plain for all to see that this is yet another corrupt decision by the most corrupt government of the last century.

What else are we to think of this? Lucy Powell MP, Ed Miliband’s election strategist, had a few well-chosen ideas on that subject. Writing in The Guardian, she stated:

“With only a record of failure to run on, David Cameron’s campaign is reliant on smear, fear and fat cats’ chequebooks. This is a party flush with big money backers but without the empathy or ideas the country needs, so they are rigging the rules of our democracy in their favour.

“When he was first leader of the opposition, David Cameron said he wanted to take the big money out of politics. He promised to address the ‘big donor culture’, arguing that we should ‘cut what is spent on a general election’. Yet he has now cynically changed his tune. Desperate to hang on to power, the Tories have quietly changed the rules to allow them to spend big in the runup to the election. The changes would allow them to spend millions more than they’re presently allowed, paving the way for Tory propaganda to flood constituencies.”

Opponents of Tory tyranny cannot match the Nasty Party’s spending power. All we have are our own voices and the facts.

That’s why next year – more than ever before – we have to put the message out to protect the public against the next wave of lies and ‘spin’.

The Tory Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act means we can’t spend any appreciable amount of money doing this, but they can’t stop us talking and they can’t stop us publicising the facts.

It’s up to us – all of us – to show the Tories that money isn’t everything.

how was this allowed to happen? It seems as if there has been a misuse of parliamentary process..surely this is can be challenged and altered? It is insufficient for Labour to simply meekly state they didn’t spot it happening…how feeble is that?? If they do nothing more it suggests they are happy with the outcome and therefore complicit in it happening.

In fairness, it’s not all that feeble for Labour to have missed a statutory instrument being enacted without debate – they happen all the time. What if it had a misleading name? After all, the Act of Parliament mentioned in the article doesn’t exactly have the clearest title in the world. Now that it has happened, there’s not a lot Labour can do about it.

What is the point of having an election commission if they are unable to stop this type of corruption? like many others lacking the teeth or will to change things for the better. We are going back to the days of Rotten Boroughs we should and must stop this rot and restore at least some measure of democracy

Permit my asking, but was there not a Party in Germany in the late 1930s which was also contemptuous of normal democratic procedures? And did this Party show a comparable disrespect for Law? And for all those it considered to be inferior or defective? And did it also use “Double Talk”, secrecy and every other trick in the book to ensure that it had absolute power?

And if a photograph of Our Glorious Leader were to have an unusual moustache photo-shopped onto it, would he perhaps resemble that German Party’s Leader ?

Should The Conservative and Unionist Party now change its name to The Corrupt and Vested Interests Party to more accurately reflect their policies?

I have been considering the evidence carefully since they formed a coalition (rather than actually being being properly elected!) This lot are not nearly as wicked (yet) as that 1930s lot, but I think that so many of the things they have done are so clearly hostile, divisive and non-democratic that Godwin or no Godwin, the comparison is worth making. To borrow a phrase, they ARE Poundland Nazis !

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.